Microsoft actually did create the mouse scroll wheel, about the only thing they've innovated ever. I've had one of the Microsoft IntelliMouse Explorer Internet mice for 4 1/2 years, it's never failed me (The first optical mouse made by MS!). When I bought the thing, it cost $100 AU! Now, the newer models of the same mouse cost only $50 AU. My keyboard is just a $14 Internet keyboard.

Mandrake wrote:Long file names? They were in Mac OS, but only to 25 characters, Microsoft implimented much longer file names in 95, and Apple waited until OS X before it included this feature.

Well, of course, Microsoft copied from other company, and had to make it better.
But still, file name in Mac OS is a lot more flexible. Unlike in Windows, heavily depended on the extension of file name. Need me to show you a picture of "Would the real file please stand up" screenshot?

It's very interesting, people having different luck with different brands. I've had no problems with my Microsoft mouse, but then look at DJGMs post!

Well, of course, Microsoft copied from other company, and had to make it better.But still, file name in Mac OS is a lot more flexible. Unlike in Windows, heavily depended on the extension of file name. Need me to show you a picture of "Would the real file please stand up" screenshot?

I could say the same thing about Mac OS and Fast User Switching. Or the fact that OS X 10.0 had a control panel design similar to that of Windows 2000, then in 10.1 they change it to categories, just like in Windows XP, which had been out for quite some time.

There are still file extensions in Mac OS X, just like in Windows XP. They are hidden in OS X, just like in XP.

Mandrake wrote:There are still file extensions in Mac OS X, just like in Windows XP. They are hidden in OS X, just like in XP.

NO, not exactly right. Mac OS can have file extensions, but applications and files are associated with resource link or fork. File extensions are optional, but helpful. Unlike Windows, depending on file extensions.

Of course Windows is dependant on file extensions, they are very useful. Without them, how would the machine know if a document merely called 'assets' was an Access Database or an Excel Spreadsheet? If it is called 'assets.xls' the OS automatically realizes that it is a spreadsheet and will open it in Excel, rather than trying to open it in Access or some other program.

Also, lets go back to those kernel panics that I talked about. The version was OS X 10.5, the kernel panic was beneficial, it provided the information that we needed to know to fix the error. I had a similar error on Windows XP, whilst testing a beta quality sound drive. The stop error helped me identify that the audio driver caused the problem, and allowed me to easily uninstall the driver upon rebooting and install a more stable driver. This was great for both OS X and Windows 2000/XP, but then in Jaguar, Iin an effort to make OS X easier to use than Windows XP and Lindows mashed together, the kernel panic is replaced with a "You must restart your computer" screen. How is this going to help anyone fix the error!? Because of this, you have to reboot, then go hunting for the log file of what happened, in the mean time, the kernel panic could happen again! If you knew what had happened straight away, then the error could be fixed immediately. Because, unlike the random BSODs you get every half-hour in Windows ME, the stop errors and kernel panics in OS X and XP mean something!

Mandrake wrote:Of course Windows is dependant on file extensions, they are very useful. Without them, how would the machine know if a document merely called 'assets' was an Access Database or an Excel Spreadsheet? If it is called 'assets.xls' the OS automatically realizes that it is a spreadsheet and will open it in Excel, rather than trying to open it in Access or some other program.

The file and applicaiton association is stored in resource fork, that is part of Macintosh file system.
In general, the file will be associated with the application created it. Of course you can change the default application to launch it, you can the list of application that will handle that file.
You get more freedom in naming your files. You can name your file Holiday v.1 , Holiday v.2 and so on... Simple and no worries for end users.

In Windows, you will have applications fighting for the same extensions.

Mandrake wrote:. . . Also, lets go back to those kernel panics that I talked about.The version was OS X 10.5, the kernel panic was beneficial . . .

Either that's a typo, or you've got a time machine. Mac OS X 10.5 doesn't actually exist . . . yet!
At least, not until about sometime in mid-late 2005. By which time, we will more than likely still
be waiting for Microsoft to finally release what is currently codenamed as Windows Longhorn!

I don't see how, In Windows XP, applications are fighting for extensions. If some idi*t installed Winamp, Quicktime, WMP and Real Player and told them all to be the default players for everything, and to maintain that, you would have problems, but that's silly. I have quite a few media players on my system: Winamp 5 RC8, iTunes 4.1.1, WMP and Quicktime 6.4. I've told Winamp 5 to handle my music (MP3, WMA etc), WMP to handle all video files, and Quicktime to handle MOV and QT movies. There are never any problems.

Alright Antony, so we'll say Joe Blow has a document called "report" on both his PC and his Mac, saved in Microsoft Word formats. There are no problems, the file opens in Microsoft Word, and the app it loads in can be easily changed. But then, for example, Joe Blow gets another 10 documents that are all in Microsoft Word formats. Then he has had enough of using old versions of Microsoft Word, so he downloads OpenOffice and installs it on his Mac and PC - in the install he tells OpenOffice to handle it's own files and not MS Office files. Then later on he decides he wants all Word documents to open in OpenOffice Writer. On his Windows XP PC, he just opens the File Types Option in the control panel, he selects .DOC and choose the OpenOffice Writer to be the default application, easy. On the Mac, he would have to change each of his 11 documents to open in OpenOffice Writer, as opposed to just changing the systemwide setting. Not to mention, on Windows 2000 and XP you can use the 'Set Program Access and Defaults' program to easily set your favourite Browser, Email Program, Java Virtual Machine and Media Player.

As what I said earlier,
Mac OS X = the world's most stable and powerful operating system code base + the world's most user-friendly graphic user interface.APC Magazine comfirmed this.

And also I mentioned in Antony won't switch to Linux thread, Mac OS' interface is solid, unlike Windows or Linux full with countless fancy sets. Without standards, hard to follow for non-computer geeks.

I don't think you need me to repeat the bundled near useless software in Windows. Why did Adobe decide not to produce Photoshop Album for Macintosh? iPhoto.

apc technology awards 2003 wrote:Microsoft, stop your moaning. Linux fans, count to 10 and calm down. Panther is a clear leader in ease of use, technology, system stability and value. The elegant interface doesn't equate to the over-simplification of "computing for dummies". Far from it: Panther packs a powerful Unix core, but unlike other *nix distros, it has a mature and consistent inferface. Those same Unix underpinnings make Panther blissfully unaffected by the endless parade of viruses, worms and Trojan horses exploiting Windows vulnerabilities.

Mac OS X 10.3 also gains graphics capabilities that Microsoft is unlikely to match until Longhorn is released in 2006.

Pardon me for saying so, but Windows XP is over two years old, since then Apple has released THREE major revisions for Mac OS, I'd expect it to kill Windows XP alive, but it doesn't come close.

Standards? The Windows GUI has remained largely the same since Windows 95, with just refinements and enhancements that make it easier to use.

As for the Mac, they have totally switched code bases, meaning people had to use Classic Mode emulation, much slower than normal apps. Then they changed from 68k to PPC processors, leaving 68k Macs useless when Apple releases new software that needs PPC. Then in 1998 apple releases the G3, which means when Apple releases OS X you need a new processor, old one won't work. Meanwhile, Windows has stuck with the 9x and NT code bases, which allow basically all programs to run on either code base. The processors have always remained the same - x86.

I've said it once, but I'll say it again: Windows commands 90%+ of the OS market, any security flaws have far more serious implications than on the Mac, which only runs on select proprietary systems. We saw how strong Apple security is, they released iTunes for Windows only recently, the DRM used in the songs downloaded off iTunes has already been cracked.

Value? I only bought my Mac three months ago, do I really have to pay the full fee to use 10.3? Yes, you do! Then if you want the latest stuff in Mac OS, you WILL pay $129 every year! Not very good value to me. Compared to, if I bought a computer with WinXP Home in 2001, when it was released, I just pay the $99 USD upgrade fee and upgrade to Longhorn when it is released.

As for the new worthless visual effects in Panther, I congratulate Apple - they have succeeded in creating a GUI with so many effects it makes Luna look FAST in comparison!

Why didn't Adobe produce Photoshop Album for Mac? Probably because Mac software accounts for less than 5% of Adobe's sales, and they couldn't justify the amount it would cost to port it to Mac OS.

Everyone knows that without Microsoft Office, Apple wouldn't be able to sell OS X at all.

As for the lies about the G5 being the 'fastest' PC around, I quote the following from Paul Thurrot's Internet Nexus blog. ( A selected portion of one of his posts)

The Apple fanatics just can't stand it, but those G5 benchmarks are as bogus as a three dollar bill. As always, CNET's Michael Kanellos does get it, noting in a recent article the ways in which Apple's supposed "fastest personal computer in the world" is anything but. First, the scores Apple posted for the Intel competition are bogus. According to the Apple-sponsored tests, Dell Computer's Dimension 8300 with a single 3 GHz Pentium 4 scored 693 in the SPEC floating point test, below Apple's score of 840 (for a dual processor G5). However, previous (non-Apple) tests show the Intel 3 GHz Pentium 4 scoring 1213 on the floating-point test, while the 3.2GHz version hit 1252; both of these scores are roughly 50 percent faster than Apple's best dual processor score, and the Intel systems are both using a single processor, no less. Furthermore, floating point is supposedly the area in which PowerPC processors outdo the Intel competition. Heh. On the integer tests, the figures are even further off. Apple's tests show the dual-processor G5 machine scoring 800, while Dell's scored only "slightly higher" with 889; too bad Intel actually racked up scores of 1164 and 1221, respectively, for the 3 GHz and 3.2 GHz systems. Game over. Second, Apple did things to illegally tilt the test in the G5's favor. For example, the G5 was outfitted with faster Serial ATA technology, compared to the standard ATA hard drives used on the Dell. And then there's the infamous choice of a GCC compiler that Apple uses to develop Mac OS X; meanwhile, no one actually uses this compiler outside of Linux on PCs. Third, there is Apple's legacy: The company has been lying to its customers ever since Jobs took the company back. A few of the more infamous examples: The (400 MHz) G4 Cube was a "supercomputer" (it wasn't), the G4 was faster than any PC (remember the "Pentium toasting" commercials?), and virtually ever single promise about release dates ever uttered from Jobs' mouth proved to be false (the PowerBook 17 was coming in February 2003, remember? It was available in limited quantities in March, but in volume in April, in one recent example). In fact, Apple's bogus claims are so bald-faced, the company's been sued several times by shareholders.

And one last small quote from Paul Thurrot's blog:

When asked recently about OS X on the x86, Intel CEO Craig Barrett had had a few interesting (and, sadly, accurate things to say. "We keep trying, but frankly it gets less and less interesting each year. When they were 10 percent of the market it was a more interesting issue. But at 2 percent of the market ... our sales can blip 2 percent quarter on quarter, so we can shrink or grow by a couple of Apples. There are lots of interesting aspects in there. Steve [Jobs] is trying to appeal more to the Intel base. You might ask why he doesn't take his OS and try to compete in the other 98 percent of the market. But he doesn't choose to do that. The OS X kernel runs just fine on Intel. Just a matter of the app stack to stick on top of that. But you'll have to talk to Steve about that. We just try to get design wins with these guys."

I'll end with this thought again; If Mac OS X is so great, then why do only ~3% of people use it? Hell, even more people use Linux than Mac OS X. Dell, the largest computer manufacturer in the world, has ~15% of the computer market alone, compared to Apple's piddly 3%! Remember back when Apple had more than 10% of the market? They mucked up somewhere between then and now.

Mandrake wrote:Standards? The Windows GUI has remained largely the same since Windows 95, with just refinements and enchancements that make it easier to use.

Yeah, a copy of Mac OS interface with Windows style.

Mandrake wrote:As for the Mac, they have totally switched code bases, meaning people had to use Classic Mode emulation, much slower than normal apps. Then they changed from 68k to PPC processors, leaving 68k Macs useless when Apple releases new software that needs PPC. Then in 1998 apple releases the G3, which means when Apple releases OS X you need a new processor, old one won't work. Meanwhile, Windows has stuck with the 9x and NT codebases, which allow basically all programs to run on either codebase. The processors have always remaind the same - x86.

You are mixing hardward and software (operating systems) together.Windows 95+ won't run in 16bit x86 machines such as 80286, want me to memtion 8088/8086?

Want to dig out history?Let's look at Apple Computers, even the old 68k processors last MUCH LONGER than the early 80286, 8088, XT, AT etc.

Mandrake wrote:We saw how strong Apple security is, they released iTunes for Windows only recently, the DRM used in the songs downloaded off iTunes has already been cracked.

NOT the DRM, but information passing from QuickTime to sound device.

Mandrake wrote:Value? I only bought my Mac three months ago, do I really have to pay the full fee to use 10.3? Yes, you do! Then if you want the latest stuff in Mac OS, you WILL pay $129 every year! Not very good value to me. Compared to, if I bought a computer with WinXP Home in 2001, when it was released, I just pay the $99 USD upgrade fee and upgrade to Longhorn when it is released.

If you bought a PC 3 months before the release of Windows XP, it come with Windows 2000. You HAVE TO pay for Windows XP upgrade, which is NOT CHEAP.

Mandrake wrote:As for the new worthless visual effects in Panther, I congratulate Apple - they have succeded in creating a GUI with so many effects it makes Luna look FAST in comparison!

I am afraid, you are completely wrong in this account.Mac OS' Graphic User Interface although not the first GUI OS available, but Apple has spent lots of time and money to invest the user interface. The Mac OS 9's interface was good and easy to use. However, they need something new, so the Aqua interface.

Mandrake wrote:Why didn't Adobe produce Photoshop Album for Mac? Probably because Mac software accounts for less than 5% of Adobe's sales, and they couldn't justify the ammount it would cost to port it to Mac OS.

Not really, if there was no iPhoto, there would have Photoshop Album for Mac, from the long term relationship between Adobe and Apple.
What's the market share got to do with this?
Lots of Windows users use illegal Adobe products. Still profit from Mac platform.